Talk:Bang Energy

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2019. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bang Energy received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

I am requesting an edit for the VPX page in order to avoid a conflict of interest. I wanted to expand the current article in order to contain more information about VPX without being an advertisement in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Below is the proposed edit. Thank you for your time :) RollinSwollen (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'm

I have gone ahead and edited most of the questionable sections but wanted you to take a look at the following...

• Notability...Are there mentions of the subject in reliable outside sources?...Quotes from a subject's website, while they might be truthful, do not qualify, so I had to delete almost the entire Reference section.
• What Wikipedia is not
  ...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a soapbox or means of promotion...the article's content as it appears now does not follow this precept.
• Neutral Point of View
  ...Tone is an issue with the original article and with the re-write. For instance, saying "Our commitment" would not work in Encyclopedia Britannica and it is not quite appropriate for Wikipedia.
• Copyright Violation Issues
  ...Some of the word choices appear to possibly come from the company's website. Wikipedia articles cannot have material in them that come from another website.

I do understand you've worked hard on this, but *please* read and study the Wikipedia Pages I've posted for you above, they will help you understand everything that goes into a good Wikipedia article. When you have more questions you can always talk to us at the IRC Wikipedia Help-channel.

Shearonink (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Pharmaceuticals is a sports nutrition company which manufactures and distributes various sports supplements, including N.O. Shotgun, Redline, and Protein Rush. VPX is located in Florida, United States, but sells some of their product line internationally, including Canada, Mexico, Australia, and Europe.

Many of VPX's products are backed by University studies.^{[citation needed]} Meltdown was proven by Baylor University to be 117% to 273% more potent than caffeine & ephedrine.^{[citation needed]}

Cytosport Case

On May 6, 2009, in

The Court has denied VPX/REDLINE's motion for partial summary judgment on damages without prejudice and has allowed VPX/REDLINE to re-file a Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages on or before May 31, 2010 when the discovery on damages has concluded.^[citation needed]

ConsumerReports.org finds Heavy Metals in Protein Drinks.

On June 2, 2010 ConsumerReports.org, and in the July issue of Consumer Reports magazine published a review of popular protein drinks, which included elemental analysis for heavy metals in each of these products. The report stated that traces of the metals arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury were found in most of the protein drinks which were tested. In response to this story VPX /Redline has received numerous inquiries from our valued customers in regards to the heavy metal content of our protein powders and protein beverages.^{[citation needed]}

VPX/Redline has conducted independent, third-party tests of all of its protein powders and beverages. The test results indicate that for each of the VPX protein powders and protein beverages, no traces of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury were detected.^{[citation needed]}

I came across this page because it was flagged as needing copy edit. I assert that it is in need of an overhaul, if not outright deletion, as it reads like product promotion and is lacking in citations.

This article was originally about the parent company Vital Pharmaceuticals. In 2010 there was a request for edit from a party wishing to avoid a conflict of interest. The text that remains above is what is referenced in the "peer review" banner on this talk page.

Since then it was proposed for deletion, that was contested, then the user who proposed deletion submitted it to articles for deletion. They subsequently withdrew it and moved the page to it's current space. This is why the infobox is broken; the class was changed from "business" to "product" by the same user and they did not repopulate it with valid fields.

As it stands today, the two references are to the company's website, and a website selling the product through affiliate links. I can find only a few notable sources mentioning Bang in a web search, and the entirety of that coverage concerns litigation between Bang/Vital Pharmaceuticals and the Monster energy drink company. LA Times Monster press release containing EU court decision Beverage industry website describing new lawsuit

Of these, I think only the LA Times qualifies as a reliable source. I would consider the second one suspect, as it is a press release from a rival company, but it contains a pdf of the court decision. The third one is from a beverage industry website that may have a vested interest in one or both companies.

So where ought we go from here? Rewrite the article to contain information only from reliable sources? Send to AfD as

I am requesting a tiny edit. The link to their website is www.bang-energy.com. They must still own that domain because it directs to the new domain. The url of the current site is bangenergy.com. I am just requesting the link be changed to the current url as to avoid confusion. Acciprovus (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really curious about super creatine and would assume others are also, I'd like to add info about super creatine but am not sure where to find information about it. Can someone perhaps help me look for info on this? AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Creatine was found to be non-existant Charzuchi (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you typically include the politics of an organizations's founder?. Or is that only if they are a DJT supporter?. 2601:6C1:300:85E0:5D37:8D14:975:5B9D (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]